A Second Sweaty Referendum

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:16 am

Spaceman wrote:Been a Burnley fan since I was 10. Season ticket for years but sickened by the anti Scottish crap on here .
No more

Probably an old card from a previous seat no longer valid. If not what a tool

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:25 am

Couple of question IT

- I'm assuming that the argument being used is that as the UK is currently in the EU, if Scotland votes independence before we leave, it stays in, even though it would be a different country?

- Are you sure there is'nt enough SNP voters who are also anti-EU (quite a large % I think) to counter balance those who voted remain because of the EU (and nothing else)?

I'm not sure on the first one, and the stuff I can find suggests the 2nd bit pretty much cancel themselves out.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:27 am

Regarding Spaceman post, even if it is a bit over the top, the anti-scottish stuff posted on here is way over the top, even by the standards set during the "immigration" thread.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:41 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Couple of question IT

- I'm assuming that the argument being used is that as the UK is currently in the EU, if Scotland votes independence before we leave, it stays in, even though it would be a different country?

The more honest argument to make would be that Scotland has a better chance of staying in the EU if they vote for independence than if they choose to stay in the UK. I don't think anyone is guarenteeing that Scotland will stay in the EU if they choose independence, and if anyone is then they're lying.

- Are you sure there is'nt enough SNP voters who are also anti-EU (quite a large % I think) to counter balance those who voted remain because of the EU (and nothing else)?

I'm not sure on the first one, and the stuff I can find suggests the 2nd bit pretty much cancel themselves out.

I don't think they cancel each other out. 45% voted for independence and 63% voted to remain in the EU so i think that the promise of continued EU membership over the uncertainty of EU membership for an independent Scotland probably helped the No vote. The three major UK political parties obviously agree with that since they used it in their campaigning.

It might be that Scotland has become more Eurosceptic since the EU referendum, i think it has, but we'll only really know for sure if there's a second IndyRef given such a massive shift from what arguably kept Scotland in the UK in 2014.

vinrogue · Post by **vinrogue** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:55 am

Maybe it is time for a General Election? If only the Lib Dems hadn't made it almost impossible to call one.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:00 am

How can Scotland stay in the EU if the UK leaves?

The EU membership for the UK is based on what the UK gives/provides/takes from the EU isn't it?
Of course I'm not fully aware of all the details, but the fact that it can take up to 10 years for new applicants to get full membership would suggest it's a bit more complex then just handing someone else's membership over to a different country?

For example the UK get's certain Veto rights doesn't it?
Scotland can't be handed those rights, simply because it isn't as big as the UK.

Certain people seem to be clinging on to the possibility that Scotland can just have the UK's spot, but seeing as a country the size of Turkey has to wait and follow the rules, I doubt a small place like Scotland will be allowed to just waltz in.
That's just sheer stupidity or arrogance if anyone thinks that will happen.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:46 am

Sidney1st wrote:How can Scotland stay in the EU if the UK leaves?

I doubt anyone really thinks they can, but they could relatively easily join the Single Market (with Freedom of Movement) and Customs Union etc. (at a cost), retain EHIC cards etc and maintain all the current EU regulations that apply to them. This would mean that they wouldn't need to commit to join the Euro.
They could then spend an extended period deciding whether to opt for full membership of the EU.
I still hope that Scotland remain in the UK, (and to leave would be a big gamble - much like Brexit), but I'm just highlighting a possible route that Sturgeon might reasonably propose.

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:59 am

Sidney1st wrote:How can Scotland stay in the EU if the UK leaves?

Brussels have already said they would not be allowed to 'stay' as a member and thus would need to re-apply. Spain have already promised to veto Scotland's application due to their own concerns with Catalonia separating and that's before you begin to look at the merit of the EU accepting a country, who would most likely be in deficit for a really long time. However to counterbalance, I'm sure Junker, Tusk et al would love to stick one to the UK by welcoming Scotland aboard. It's worth also noting that Scotland would most likely be forced to adopt the single currency as part of re-joining.

As nil has mentioned, Scotland could join the single market and welcome the rules made by Brussels governing the products they manufacture and export. They would also need to adopt Schengen rules regarding open borders to Europe, which would then pose an issue with the remaning UK and the Anglo-Scottish border.

To answer the question - it's not possible for Scotland to stay in the EU. It's unlikely they'll be able to even join, leaving them in an interesting state with a huge deficit and no-one to bail them out. If they were to go independent, they could easily find themselves out of the EU, out of the pound and out of cash pretty quickly.

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:05 am

Damo wrote:Does anyone seriously expect Davis to come out and say 'no deal will harm our economy' on the run up to Brexit negotiations?
I'd be absolutely gob smacked if he showed his hand like that.

the problem is that davis isn't going to be negotiating with idiots (just on behalf them).

his opposite numbers already know it will harm our economy. any deal is likely to harm our economy (it won't be as good as we have now) but no deal is even worse.

its not about showing his hand, its about being honest with the people he his representing. his hand is already shown.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:07 am

Darthlaw wrote:Brussels have already said they would not be allowed to 'stay' as a member and thus would need to re-apply. Spain have already promised to veto Scotland's application due to their own concerns with Catalonia separating and that's before you begin to look at the merit of the EU accepting a country, who would most likely be in deficit for a really long time. However to counterbalance, I'm sure Junker, Tusk et al would love to stick one to the UK by welcoming Scotland aboard. It's worth also noting that Scotland would most likely be forced to adopt the single currency as part of re-joining.

As nil has mentioned, Scotland could join the single market and welcome the rules made by Brussels governing the products they manufacture and export. They would also need to adopt Schengen rules regarding open borders to Europe, which would then pose an issue with the remaning UK and the Anglo-Scottish border.

To answer the question - it's not possible for Scotland to stay in the EU. It's unlikely they'll be able to even join, leaving them in an interesting state with a huge deficit and no-one to bail them out. If they were to go independent, they could easily find themselves out of the EU, out of the pound and out of cash pretty quickly.

It's far from certain that Spain would veto a Scottish application. Recently all they've said is that Scotland would have to join the queue.

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:09 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's far from certain that Spain would veto a Scottish application. Recently all they've said is that Scotland would have to join the queue.

Behind Turkey? That must be some queue waiting time.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:11 am

Darthlaw wrote:Behind Turkey? That must be some queue waiting time.

Do you think that any nation that has applied after Turkey applied has to wait until a final decision on Turkey has been made? C'mon. Think a little.

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:17 am

It was tongue in cheek.

Spain wont say much more as they know May, rightly or wrongly, will not allow Scotland the referendum before their own Catalonia referendum later this year. In short, they've got bigger fish (probably caught in UK waters) to fry.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:20 am

The SNP are banking a bit too heavily on the EU changing all their current rules for Scotland, just because it would annoy the UK.

Bit like us relying on german car manufacturers making sure we get a good Brexit deal to be perfectly honest.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:20 am

Darthlaw wrote:It was tongue in cheek.

Spain wont say much more as they know May, rightly or wrongly, will not allow Scotland the referendum before their own Catalonia referendum later this year. In short, they've got bigger fish (probably caught in UK waters) to fry.

Fair enough.

I doubt Spain would have a problem with Scotland joining. It would make them hypocrites if they allowed Montenegro to join but then denied Scotland.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:24 am

quoonbeatz wrote:the problem is that davis isn't going to be negotiating with idiots (just on behalf them).

his opposite numbers already know it will harm our economy. any deal is likely to harm our economy (it won't be as good as we have now) but no deal is even worse.

its not about showing his hand, its about being honest with the people he his representing. his hand is already shown.

The thing is, it isn't just our economy at stake.
No deal could be an absolute disaster for the EU should, for example, we make a success of trading outside of the EU.
There will be lots at stake for both sides, and it's certainly not going to be a case of junker and Co telling us what we can and can't have

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:32 am

So IT suggesting that the UK government would de-rail Scotland's attempts to join the EU was just paranoia then?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:43 am

Sidney1st wrote:So IT suggesting that the UK government would de-rail Scotland's attempts to join the EU was just paranoia then?

It's not paranoia to avoid a bad but unlikely situation. Are you paranoid if you wear a seat belt? It's unlikely you'll ever need it but you'll still protect yourself.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:45 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's not paranoia to avoid a bad but unlikely situation. Are you paranoid if you wear a seat belt? It's unlikely you'll ever need it but you'll still protect yourself.

I've seen far far to many bad drivers/accidents etc that it isn't worth not wearing one

It was just a little bizarre that you're having this paranoia that the UK government will stop the Scots being free

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:46 am

Sorry IT, bit like the SNP mate of mine on twitter, the arguments are just not there, as May hasn't ruled it out.

If she had said, yep, no chance at all, then you would have a point.

But it will happen, just not until after this Brexit fubar is over.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:07 am

Sidney1st wrote:I've seen far far to many bad drivers/accidents etc that it isn't worth not wearing one

It was just a little bizarre that you're having this paranoia that the UK government will stop the Scots being free

it's like i'm watching you regress into ridiculousness. You said there was no reason not to wait until after Brexit. I gave you a bunch of reasons why that would be a bad idea and now you're calling me paranoid simply for seeing that calling a referendum before Brexit removes the possibility that May can prevent Scotland joining the EU through their Brexit negotiations.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:08 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Sorry IT, bit like the SNP mate of mine on twitter, the arguments are just not there, as May hasn't ruled it out.

If she had said, yep, no chance at all, then you would have a point.

But it will happen, just not until after this Brexit fubar is over.

I never argued that she's ruled it out.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:12 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:

it's like i'm watching you regress into ridiculousness. You said there was no reason not to wait until after Brexit. I gave you a bunch of reasons why that would be a bad idea and now you're calling me paranoid simply for seeing that calling a referendum before Brexit removes the possibility that May can prevent Scotland joining the EU through their Brexit negotiations.

You were the one who stated that the UK government could possibly include a ban on Scotland joining the EU after Brexit

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:26 am

Sidney1st wrote:You were the one who stated that the UK government could possibly include a ban on Scotland joining the EU after Brexit

Yes, and it is possible IF Scotland wait until after Brexit happens. By not waiting they remove that possibility (because there would be no incentive for it).

This is pretty basic mathematics. In one scenario it's unlikely and in another scenario it's certain not to happen. This isn't paranoia, it's just applying probability theory to politics.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:27 am

I'm surprised Sturgeon hasn't mentioned it during one of her waffling speeches.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:47 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yes, and it is possible IF Scotland wait until after Brexit happens. By not waiting they remove that possibility (because there would be no incentive for it).

This is pretty basic mathematics. In one scenario it's unlikely and in another scenario it's certain not to happen. This isn't paranoia, it's just applying probability theory to politics.

Hi IT, my understanding is that Scotland is running a deficit of around 9% (see Spectator article above for one area this is quoted). Doesn't the EU require prospective members to have deficit of no more than 3%?

How will Scotland deal with this challenge?

Is it conceivable that the EU will not be able to offer Scotland membership until Scotland's budget deficit has been resolved? (I think they tried to by-pass these rules to "squeeze" Greece into the euro. I doubt they want to repeat it).

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:50 pm

Another question I've thought of.

What happens to Scottish citizens in England and vice versa?
It popped into my head when I was chatting to a Scottish bloke at work.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:54 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Regarding Spaceman post, even if it is a bit over the top, the anti-scottish stuff posted on here is way over the top, even by the standards set during the "immigration" thread.

Hi Lancs, is this stuff "anti-Scottish" or anti SNP? I think the latter, just as we are (majority) anti-Tory, (some/most?) anti-Corbyn's labour, (some) anti-ukip and (some) anti all the other political parties.

I don't believe the comments are, in general, personal (other than the "usual" personal stuff).

Did you see QT last night? Did you see how Bognor Regis audience responded to the SNP MP?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:59 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Another question I've thought of.

What happens to Scottish citizens in England and vice versa?
It popped into my head when I was chatting to a Scottish bloke at work.

I was on an HMRC PAYE y/end webinar this morning. First time I've seen that there is a difference in tax allowances between Scotland and rUK. SNP chose not to increase the basic rate tax band. What wasn't clear who this applies to? Is it everyone working in Scotland (even if you live on the other side of the Scotland/England border) or everyone living in Scotland even if you work in England, say, Carlisle for example. Any one know?

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:05 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Regarding Spaceman post, even if it is a bit over the top, the anti-scottish stuff posted on here is way over the top, even by the standards set during the "immigration" thread.

It is horrendous. the people writing such bile should be ashamed. sadly, they won't be, as they beliveve it is ok to write such ignorance from their anonymous school room.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:05 pm

IanMcL wrote:It is horrendous. the people writing such bile should be ashamed. sadly, they won't be, as they believe it is ok to write such ignorance from their anonymous school room.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:09 pm

Badly at a guess Paul

But you have to ask what an SNP MP is doing being on the panel at Bognor Regis!

I appreciate that there are not many alternatives to the Cons in parliament at the moment, but they are a one issue party, whose interests are exclusively north of the border (whatever they say).

Putting them on down there is akin to saying to the SNP - English people don't like you at all, so do one (which I'm sure the SNP love!)

Sad around really, but if you have referendums, this is what you end up with.

I started to think in my head all the countries that have been and gone since the Act of union, and its an astonishing number. Maybe we are not supposed to be a Union anymore, and if that is the case, then so be it.

As long on the SNP stick to being in NATO (no guarantee) then I'm sure we'll all get along fine (eventually)

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:41 pm

Hi Lancaster.
I guess that there are 2 pretty obvious reasons why an SNP MP was on Question time.
1. QT is shown north of the border as well as England
2. The 2 big talking points of the week were Brexit and a Scottish referendum. There could have been no balanced discussion of these without an SNP presence.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:28 pm

Question time was hilarious last night, when the SNP MP was asked what currency would Scotland have, she stuttered then gave no answer !

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:50 pm

Oh I know Nil, and they have to be there as they are the only viable opposition at the moment, but if you wanted to keep the Union, you probably would want to avoid SNP MPs getting it in the neck from English people.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:22 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Did you see QT last night? Did you see how Bognor Regis audience responded to the SNP MP?

I saw QT last night and thought it pretty interesting. Most on the panel spoke well and sensibly but I thought the SNP woman was a bit too pushy.

I voted to remain the EU but Reese-Mogg in particular gave me more hope that we can do well out of leaving if we work at it and everyone, including the EU, behave sensibly. His point was we run a large trade deficit with the EU (we buy more from them then they buy from us) and it is not in their interest to lose that. If the EU introduce tarrifs on our products we can do the same for our EU imports, and reduce them for non-eu products which, because of EU membership, currently have tarrifs.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... sa-civitas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One interesting point illustrated by the QT programme - all the talk was Brexit related. I fear we will be paralysed for the two years all this takes when there is plenty of other stuff needing attention.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:49 pm

claretandy wrote:Question time was hilarious last night, when the SNP MP was asked what currency would Scotland have, she stuttered then gave no answer !

No she didn't. She said that they were currently considering the various options, (of which there are several), and that it would be announced when they published their plans for independence in the run-up to any referendum.
I'm pretty sure that they'll cover this one in some detail this time, since it was identified as a serious weakness in their argument last time.
Apparently they are currently considering 9 options:
e.g. Scottish pound pegged to value of UK pound, Scottish pound pegged to Euro, totally independent Scottish pound (i.e. free-floating) [that would appear v dangerous], Sterlingization, oil-standard, and Crytocurrencies (that's what we will probably all end up with at some point in the future, but v unlikeley to be regarded as a serious option in the short-term].

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:50 pm

She made several uh uh uh uh uh uh uh noises then said watch this space.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:06 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Hi Lancaster.
I guess that there are 2 pretty obvious reasons why an SNP MP was on Question time.
1. QT is shown north of the border as well as England
2. The 2 big talking points of the week were Brexit and a Scottish referendum. There could have been no balanced discussion of these without an SNP presence.

Hi nil_d, fully agree, QT is a UK programme and is shown in Scotland and, I assume, is also shown in N.Ireland. Latter appeared to be missed from several of the mentions of the regions of UK.

I guess we can add reason 3: SNP asked to be on and 4: BBC wanted them on. (Given some recent "no shows" I don't think a BBC invitation alone is sufficient, without SNP also wanting to do it).

Of course, SNP MP is also a member of the Select Committee that asked David Davis the question re modelling of impact of "no deal." I think R-M gave the right answer to this question - better not to model than to pretend there is any meaningful predictive authority to a model of 2+ years into the future. We've already seen how wrong financial models can be - produced by all the "authorities" that produce financial models - for the nearer term, never mind further into the future.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:22 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:No she didn't. She said that they were currently considering the various options, (of which there are several), and that it would be announced when they published their plans for independence in the run-up to any referendum.
I'm pretty sure that they'll cover this one in some detail this time, since it was identified as a serious weakness in their argument last time.
Apparently they are currently considering 9 options:
e.g. Scottish pound pegged to value of UK pound, Scottish pound pegged to Euro, totally independent Scottish pound (i.e. free-floating) [that would appear v dangerous], Sterlingization, oil-standard, and Crytocurrencies (that's what we will probably all end up with at some point in the future, but v unlikeley to be regarded as a serious option in the short-term].

9 options is pretty astounding.

My thoughts on those you list:
1) Scottish pound pegged to GBP - do able, I think the Irish Pound used to track sterling in days gone by, then it was "de-linked." Several countries have pegged their currencies to USD. However, pegging isn't without economic strains and costs;
2) Scottish pound pegged to euro - challenging, but fraught with risks. Euro is under it's own strains (Germany v Greece are the extremes). Remember what happened to UK before "black Wednesday with ERM mechanism;
3) Scottish pound - free-floating - the only "grown up" option, but it needs a viable Scottish economy - and 9% deficit can't be attractive to funders;
4) "Sterlingization" - not sure what this means, but I assume you mean not having a Scottish pound and just using GBP? A worse option than (1), its "pegged" with nothing on Scottish side of the "peg" - so, no "safety valve" when imbalances arise;
5) "Oil-Standard" - not sure what this means - oil is priced in USD and is extremely volatile (and Scottish North Sea oil is declining) - would this be equivalent to pegging to USD?
6) "Crytocurrencies" - I've zero idea what this means - are you thinking of "bit coin?"

I know Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations - is an impressive Scottish economist. There are some hard choices for Scotland to make. Only a free-floating Scottish pound appears to be consistent with the idea of "independence."

Claretrew · Post by **Claretrew** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:38 pm

Another view for you IT

I contest Nicola's assertion that Scotland was "dragged out of the EU against its will". With a Scottish turnout of a mere 67.2%, this was the second worst turnout of the four nations taking part. The Leave vote was won on a majority of 1.27M votes, of which 1.0M of those Leave votes came from Scotland. Had all those people voted Remain, we would still be in the EU by a margin of 0.7M votes. But supposing those folk couldn't be turned, there were 1.3M Scottish voters that simply didn't care enough about their membership of the EU to cast a vote. If these had all voted Remain, we would also still be in the EU. To campaign for Scottish independence on the back of being 'outvoted' by the rest of the UK is an 'alternative fact' Ms Sturgeon. The true irony is that you want to remain a member of a club where you will be outvoted by the bulk of a continent rather than just the rest of the UK. If you want independence, then fine, just don't hinge the whole of the campaign on a lie.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:11 pm

Paul Waine wrote:9 options is pretty astounding.

My thoughts on those you list:
1) Scottish pound pegged to GBP - do able, I think the Irish Pound used to track sterling in days gone by, then it was "de-linked." Several countries have pegged their currencies to USD. However, pegging isn't without economic strains and costs;
2) Scottish pound pegged to euro - challenging, but fraught with risks. Euro is under it's own strains (Germany v Greece are the extremes). Remember what happened to UK before "black Wednesday with ERM mechanism;
3) Scottish pound - free-floating - the only "grown up" option, but it needs a viable Scottish economy - and 9% deficit can't be attractive to funders;
4) "Sterlingization" - not sure what this means, but I assume you mean not having a Scottish pound and just using GBP? A worse option than (1), its "pegged" with nothing on Scottish side of the "peg" - so, no "safety valve" when imbalances arise;
5) "Oil-Standard" - not sure what this means - oil is priced in USD and is extremely volatile (and Scottish North Sea oil is declining) - would this be equivalent to pegging to USD?
6) "Crytocurrencies" - I've zero idea what this means - are you thinking of "bit coin?"

I know Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations - is an impressive Scottish economist. There are some hard choices for Scotland to make. Only a free-floating Scottish pound appears to be consistent with the idea of "independence."

Hi Paul.
If you don't understand some of these terms, then don't look to me for answers, since I believe you are better qualified.
Re: 9 options I assume that 2 that I have not mentioned are sterling and the euro. Neither would be likely IMO, (although they could aspire to join the EURO if they applied for full EU membership.)
I believe that "Sterlingization" is sort of using sterling "Illegally" (i.e. without official agreement) - I can't see how that would work. I presume that this is only listed so that they can rule it out - but who knows!!!
I assume that that the "oil standard" is similar to the "gold standard", so linked to the world trade value of oil.
Crytocurrencies are as you suggest digital currencies, bitcoin etc. (I've heard "Scotcoin" mentioned)

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:27 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Hi Paul.
If you don't understand some of these terms, then don't look to me for answers, since I believe you are better qualified.
Re: 9 options I assume that 2 that I have not mentioned are sterling and the euro. Neither would be likely IMO, (although they could aspire to join the EURO if they applied for full EU membership.)
I believe that "Sterlingization" is sort of using sterling "Illegally" (i.e. without official agreement) - I can't see how that would work. I presume that this is only listed so that they can rule it out - but who knows!!!
I assume that that the "oil standard" is similar to the "gold standard", so linked to the world trade value of oil.
Crytocurrencies are as you suggest digital currencies, bitcoin etc. (I've heard "Scotcoin" mentioned)

I've just done some searches for SNP ideas on an independent Scotland's currency.

I found a 2013 paper - that concludes being in a monetary union with rUK retaining GBP is the best option.

SNP website when I searched policies for "currency" came up with "no result" - and some google ads for FX trades.

It's been said before that "leaving the UK" - i.e. a majority vote for an independent Scotland - but joining the UK in a monetary union is NOT being independent. I know this was Salmond's SNP. We've got to hope that Sturgeon's SNP has moved on from this "flawed" thinking - or this stuff about a 2nd referendum is a waste of everyone's time.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:28 pm

Are you suggesting the SNP haven't thought this through properly?

Didn't expect that one

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:43 pm

Claretrew wrote:Another view for you IT

I contest Nicola's assertion that Scotland was "dragged out of the EU against its will". With a Scottish turnout of a mere 67.2%, this was the second worst turnout of the four nations taking part. The Leave vote was won on a majority of 1.27M votes, of which 1.0M of those Leave votes came from Scotland. Had all those people voted Remain, we would still be in the EU by a margin of 0.7M votes. But supposing those folk couldn't be turned, there were 1.3M Scottish voters that simply didn't care enough about their membership of the EU to cast a vote. If these had all voted Remain, we would also still be in the EU. To campaign for Scottish independence on the back of being 'outvoted' by the rest of the UK is an 'alternative fact' Ms Sturgeon. The true irony is that you want to remain a member of a club where you will be outvoted by the bulk of a continent rather than just the rest of the UK. If you want independence, then fine, just don't hinge the whole of the campaign on a lie.

If a voter turn out of 67% is too low for the Scottish to legitimately say they're being taken out of the EU against their will then the decision to even have the referendum is invalid since the Tories made the promise of one to get elected and they were elected to power with a minority of the vote in an election that had a lower turnout that the Scottish turnout for the EU referendum.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:47 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Are you suggesting the SNP haven't thought this through properly?

Didn't expect that one

I guess I'm offering an invitation to IT to help us.

I agree that SNP/Sturgeon has a "mandate" for a second referendum. Politicians are, generally, clever with words - and "or" broadened the scope of the indyref2 promise very cleverly.

But, if a mandate is to mean anything, I'd have thought that it had some sound underpinnings - and the most important of these would be the currency for a newly independent Scotland.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:53 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:If a voter turn out of 67% is too low for the Scottish to legitimately say they're being taken out of the EU against their will then the decision to even have the referendum is invalid since the Tories made the promise of one to get elected and they were elected to power with a minority of the vote in an election that had a lower turnout that the Scottish turnout for the EU referendum.

Hi IT, got me on this one - I'm lost in which event has what numbers.

Can you create a table:

Scottish Ref 2014: turnout, votes;
UK Gen Election 2015: turnout, votes;
Scottish Election 2016: turnout, votes;
EU Ref: turnout, votes;

I'm sure you've got your facts right. But, great to have this sorted. Psephology can be a little dry.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:57 pm

The currency thing is what will blow up again, as they want to keep Sterling, but don't want it to be run by the Bank of England.

It did get very silly when the Scots claimed it as their currency, which it is at the moment, but it wouldn't be if they left.

Their best bet is the Euro (not economically I hasten to add!) as it gives them a viable currency backed by the some of the biggest economies in the world. I'm not sure that is going to be acceptable to enough Scots for them to risk it.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:59 pm

Just a quirky thought:

SNP say that they will hold 2nd ref if Scotland withdrawn from EU;
so, in June referendum, in Scotland SNP needs a majority vote to remain in EU,
but, it also needs supporters of Scottish independence who aren't based in Scotland to vote for Brexit.
Result: Leave wins in UK, Scotland has majority for remain, so Sturgeon gets her second referendum.

Clever tactical voting. Are there any on here who took this approach?

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:00 pm

It has been suggested that voter turn-out in the EU referendum was lower proportionately in Scotland than elsewhere, because - based on opinion polls - the pro-remain vote in Scotland was going to be a landslide. This may or may not be true. However: any Scot who failed to vote based on this was clearly failing to understand that it was a UK wide referendum and that every single vote counted - unlike in a general election.